COURT TAKES UTILITY BILL CASE

The Supreme Court today agreed to consider whether outside groups have a right to place inserts in the monthly bills utility companies send customers.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. appealed the California Supreme Court's refusal to review a state public utilities commission order allowing third parties to place money solicitations in its billing envelopes. The justices will hear arguments in the case next term, and rule in 1986.

In its appeal, Pacific Gas and Electric said the mandatory billing inserts violate the First Amendment by requiring the utility to carry a message when it would prefer to remain silent.

The outcome of the case will affect similar situations in other states. In New York, Nevada and Oregon, consumer groups are demanding access to utility customers' bills to mail their message. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York is challenging the constitutionality of an order by the New York Public Service Commission compelling the giant utility to allow consumer groups to mail messages in its utility envelopes.

Last November, Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative which requires the state's utilities to carry third-party messages six times a year or face a misdemeanor charge.

Also today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a reapportionment case that could determine whether the political party in power can draw voting districts to its advantage. The justices will review a lower court ruling in an Indiana case that declared House and Senate maps unconstitutional because they discriminate against Democrats.

At the same time, the court refused to get involved in a similar dispute in a case from California, where a three-judge court refused to review GOP complaints that the Democratic-controlled legislature had blatantly gerrymandered the state's 45 U.S. House districts in 1982.

In other action today, the court:

(BU) Agreed to decide who has the authority to regulate the sale of natural gas to pipelines -- the federal government or the state where the gas is produced.

(BU) Let stand a ruling barring the makers of Bayer aspirin from engaging in deceptive advertising of the aspirin's virtues as a pain reliever.